Identifying cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma in health administrative data: A validation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To evaluate screening and treatment strategies, large-scale real-world data on liver disease-related outcomes are needed. We sought to validate health administrative data for identification of cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma among patients with known liver disease. METHODS: Primary patient data were abstracted from patients of the Toronto Center for Liver Disease with viral hepatitis (2006-2014), and all patients with liver disease from the Kingston Health Sciences Centre Hepatology Clinic (2013). We linked clinical information to health administrative data and tested a range of coding algorithms against the clinical reference standard. RESULTS: A total of 6,714 patients had primary chart data abstracted. A single physician visit code for cirrhosis was sensitive (98-99%), and a single hospital diagnostic code for cirrhosis was specific (91-96%). The most sensitive algorithm for decompensated cirrhosis was one cirrhosis code with any of: a hospital diagnostic code, death code, or procedure code for decompensation (range 88-99% across groups). The most specific was one cirrhosis code and one hospital diagnostic code (range 89-98% across groups). Two physician visit codes or a single hospital diagnostic code, death code, or procedure code combined with a code for cirrhosis were sensitive and specific for hepatocellular carcinoma (sensitivity 94-96%, specificity 93-98%). CONCLUSION: These sensitive and specific algorithms can be used to define patient cohorts or detect clinical outcomes using health administrative data. Our results will facilitate research into the adequacy of screening and treatment for patients with chronic viral hepatitis or other liver diseases.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".